Modern Carrier Battle Group..Strategies and Tactics

Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
t_co said:
The question still stands, though: why wouldn't the USN just put merchant IFF transponders on all their naval vessels? Like, put transponders on an A/C that say "this is the ULCC oil tanker ABCDE" and on their DDGs that say "this is the midsize cargo ship DEFGH"
Click to expand...

Sure they could but with satellite visual accuracy of less than 1m it is futile because they can be identified pronto. so your fantasy of elaborate ruse is useless. Not only that constant jet fighter landing and take off is another get away even with no communication which I doubt because how can you find A C in the middle of dark ocean without any beacon to guide it ?

Again with the advance of data fusion you get data from different sources and fused the information into readable form as well as cross checking each other.

Another thing each of the ship is register with Loyd or any other insurance company plus they register the last known position. You cannot create a register out of thin air
 
Last edited:
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Air Force Brat said:
Nice thought TerraN, but lets not forget the Song and the KittyHawk, lots of stoopid stuff can happen, I guess the real question is or should be?? how do we prevent World War III, doesn't look like much fun to me. The modern Carrier operates with a battle group for a distinct reason, its not stealth, carriers remain a sovereign bit of territory wherever they deploy, and while there is a lot of firepower, and might make a tempting target for the naive, the consequences are enough to make us all pale.

Any action, against anyones CV or CVN is going to bring down Hell Fire itself, while some question whether or not the US still has any MOJO, and everyone on this forum can read the freshman enthusiam of many of our posters to engage in a little world domination, lots of luck with that. It stands to reason that you don't leave loaded guns around the house for children to play with, but some seem to think that some kind of limited engagement could happen, and there seems to be some enthusiam for that, but I think for some maybe you should actually READ the book of Revelation, scares the you know what out of me???? During the cold war, thats what we called MAD---Mutually Assured Destruction, I hope you lads are too smart to pull the trigger on that one, but I have learned not to underestimate the Power of Ignorance, and Wisdom is in especially short supply these days, hope I'm wrong??? Brat, and no I'm not smiling, far from it.

I was gonna yell at somebody for starting this stoopidity, but I think I did back in June, sorry guys. Brat
Click to expand...

The issue isn't so much how a US-China military confrontation will play out. We all know that such a war would be catastrophic, possibly apocalyptic. Even at the most benign level, the economic repercussions will send the world economy into a depression.

However, war isn't the primary role of a CVBG. It's primary role is diplomatic intimidation, and the effectiveness of that role depends on the *perception* of a CVBG's invincibility. Thus, if people start to think that CVBGs are vulnerable, then CVBGs are not going to be very effective for intimidation purposes, even if you promise nuclear retaliation.

We are pretty much in a new arms race, but it's comforting to know that the last arms race did not conclude in nuclear armageddon, even if US and USSR were a lot more belligerent back then than US and China are today.
 
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
solarz said:
An E3 is a big, expensive target. A UAV is small, cheap and plentiful. Ultimately, any asset the CVBG deploys will betray its position, so it's just a question of how much damage the CVBG can inflict before being killed by AShBMs.

China is not going to sit back and do nothing while the US destroys its support equipment. The fact is, the days of the US being able to hit China with impunity is over. The best we can say is that they'd be going into a fair fight.
Click to expand...

even the smaller one with long endurance has fairly large RCS, like i said, if you belief a UAV can Easily penetrate the combine US surveillance+ allies surveillance in the west pacify and get within 100nm of CVBG in order to detect it and send that info back to command without been jam/destroyed then i have nothing to say anymore. I guess all those high tech AWAC, Sate, surveillance equipment from US, Skorea, Japan are good for nothing if they can't even detect several hundred chinese UAV roaming around the pacific searching for CVBG under combat condition.

and if the war is imminent i'm guessing US/Japan/S.korea will just allow those UAV to detect CVBG, send the info back, then allow chinese satelite track US CVBG without do something about it, such as jam/destroy those tracking satelite eliminating the ASbm threat to minimal. ;)
 
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
solarz said:
No, you are just making a baseless speculation on the capability of a US CVBG.

Modern battles are won either through technological advantage or maneuvers. We can argue about technology convincingly, but it's pointless arguing about maneuvers, which is what you are doing with your "taffy 3" example.

If you think the US can destroy squadrons of Chinese UAVs without the Chinese side even knowing from where the attacks are coming from, then you might as well start waving a tiny flag.
Click to expand...

you are assuming the entire UAV fleet is in the same location. if china decide to use UAV/sub for detecting CVBG, then they need to spread the entire UAV squadron into grid to cover million's km2. UAV can be destroyed from multiple locations once detected. CVBG is not the only asset that US have in the region, bases in S.korea,japan, others will also track activities from china, everything will be on high alerts(cvbg, japan, s.korea, US base in the region etc). if UAV at multiple location are been destroyed/jammed, won't china send in more UAV/others method to investigate before 100% verification of the CVBG location. Its even more diffcult if US decide to do a pre-emptive strike on china's satelite and other det/tracking equipment in the region.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
s002wjh said:
even the smaller one with long endurance has fairly large RCS, like i said, if you belief a UAV can Easily penetrate the combine US surveillance+ allies surveillance in the west pacify and get within 100nm of CVBG in order to detect it and send that info back to command without been jam/destroyed then i have nothing to say anymore. I guess all those high tech AWAC, Sate, surveillance equipment from US, Skorea, Japan are good for nothing if they can't even detect several hundred chinese UAV roaming around the pacific searching for CVBG under combat condition.

and if the war is imminent i'm guessing US/Japan/S.korea will just allow those UAV to detect CVBG, send the info back, then allow chinese satelite track US CVBG without do something about it, such as jam/destroy those tracking satelite eliminating the ASbm threat to minimal. ;)
Click to expand...

So according to your logic, the USN is capable of jamming signals and destroying satellites, while the Chinese do.... what? Sit on their asses?


s002wjh said:
you are assuming the entire UAV fleet is in the same location. if china decide to use UAV/sub for detecting CVBG, then they need to spread the entire UAV squadron into grid to cover million's km2. UAV can be destroyed from multiple locations once detected. CVBG is not the only asset that US have in the region, bases in S.korea,japan, others will also track activities from china, everything will be on high alerts(cvbg, japan, s.korea, US base in the region etc). if UAV at multiple location are been destroyed/jammed, won't china send in more UAV/others method to investigate before 100% verification of the CVBG location. Its even more diffcult if US decide to do a pre-emptive strike on china's satelite and other det/tracking equipment in the region.
Click to expand...

Please, just stop with the Japan/SK/land bases argument.

If China gets to the point of attacking US CVBGs, do you think US land bases would be spared? Do you think the PLA 2nd Artillery is just going to spent all their time trying to find some mobile CVBGs and completely ignore enemy land bases that are just sitting there?

Everything you argue is predicated on the idea that US assets will be untouched while Chinese assets are all at risk.
 
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
solarz said:
So according to your logic, the USN is capable of jamming signals and destroying satellites, while the Chinese do.... what? Sit on their asses?




Please, just stop with the Japan/SK/land bases argument.

If China gets to the point of attacking US CVBGs, do you think US land bases would be spared? Do you think the PLA 2nd Artillery is just going to spent all their time trying to find some mobile CVBGs and completely ignore enemy land bases that are just sitting there?

Everything you argue is predicated on the idea that US assets will be untouched while Chinese assets are all at risk.
Click to expand...

my logic? are you saying US can't? china certainly has the ability to destroy satelite too, but china is the one need satelite for ASBM.

sure china can certainlly can attack US bases etc, but not necessarilly eliminate all the survilliance asset in that region. furthermore if japan/S.korea send the intel to US, would china attack them too. would china be the 1st to fire the cannon or would china send in UAV 1st try to detect cvbg before bomb US asset in japan/s.korea.

i would argue a pre-emptive strike against satelite/UAV from US is less severed compare to pre-emptive strike of bombing japan/s.korea bases. So if US start sailing its CVBG toward china, will china start bombing US asset in japan/s.korea 1st or they will try to find the CVBG and not escalte to the point of full scale war.

the only thing risk for china at this point is UAV, jaming of satelite etc, but if china start bombing assets in japan/s.korea, they just escalte the war much higher.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
s002wjh said:
my logic? are you saying US can't? china certainly has the ability to destroy satelite too, but china is the one need satelite for ASBM.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the US doesn't need their satellites to conduct operations?

sure china can certainlly can attack US bases etc, but not necessarilly eliminate all the survilliance asset in that region. furthermore if japan/S.korea send the intel to US, would china attack them too. would china be the 1st to fire the cannon or would china send in UAV 1st try to detect cvbg before bomb US asset in japan/s.korea.

i would argue a pre-emptive strike against satelite/UAV from US is less severed compare to pre-emptive strike of bombing japan/s.korea bases. So if US start sailing its CVBG toward china, will china start bombing US asset in japan/s.korea 1st or they will try to find the CVBG and not escalte to the point of full scale war.

the only thing risk for china at this point is UAV, jaming of satelite etc, but if china start bombing assets in japan/s.korea, they just escalte the war much higher.
Click to expand...

Come on. If China and the US go to war, then the only possible escalation left is a nuclear exchange. You are deluded if you think China would let SK/Japan assist the US with impunity.

Once again, you're just artificially making China fight with one hand tied behind its back.
 
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
solarz said:
Oh, so the US doesn't need their satellites to conduct operations?



Come on. If China and the US go to war, then the only possible escalation left is a nuclear exchange. You are deluded if you think China would let SK/Japan assist the US with impunity.

Once again, you're just artificially making China fight with one hand tied behind its back.
Click to expand...

of course need it, but the whole threat of ASBM was base on satelite tracking to cripple carrier. so in this case the jamming/destrucation of certain chinese satelite for ASBM is more valueble compare to some US satellite.

consider a tense scenario similar to 96 taiwan. US sailing its CVBG toward china to deter china from doing something. china send in its UAV fleet to find CVBG 1st, meanwhile US base and its ally in that region provide intel or EW support, if the situation is tense and some UAV get too close for comfort, US may down 1or2 drones. China certainlly is not gonna escalte the tension by start bombing those base because they loss few unman craft. my point is US has advantage in that region, japan/s.korea/base can provide intel to avoid/jam UAV, while china has to penetrate layer of surevillance detection, to detect, track CVBG in real time without escalte into a full scale war, meanwhile entire US military in the region try to prevent that happen. so in this sense the war is limited, it might just be some tic tac EW warfare, god help us all if there is a full scale war between us & china. if we look at US/japan/s.korea elint/sigint capabilities, and the area it cover, clearly it have the advantage.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
s002wjh said:
of course need it, but the whole threat of ASBM was base on satelite tracking to cripple carrier. so in this case the jamming/destrucation of certain chinese satelite for ASBM is more valueble compare to some US satellite.

consider a tense scenario similar to 96 taiwan. US sailing its CVBG toward china to deter china from doing something. china send in its UAV fleet to find CVBG 1st, meanwhile US base and its ally in that region provide intel or EW support, if the situation is tense and some UAV get too close for comfort, US may down 1or2 drones. China certainlly is not gonna escalte the tension by start bombing those base because they loss few unman craft. my point is US has advantage in that region, japan/s.korea/base can provide intel to avoid/jam UAV, while china has to penetrate layer of surevillance detection, to detect, track CVBG in real time without escalte into a full scale war, meanwhile entire US military in the region try to prevent that happen. so in this sense the war is limited, it might just be some tic tac EW warfare, god help us all if there is a full scale war between us & china. if we look at US/japan/s.korea elint/sigint capabilities, and the area it cover, clearly it have the advantage.
Click to expand...

And how is the USN supposed to locate targets and deploy its forces without its satellite network? If anybody is more reliant on its satellites, it's the US, not China.

The Taiwan scenario makes no sense. The entire point of sending in a CVBG back in 96 was for intimidation. How would that be achieved if the PLA can't even find the CVBG? You think the PLA is scared of just the *rumour* of a USN CVBG in the area?

Your idea that the US can down some Chinese surveillance drones within Chinese-claimed waters without repercussion is also ridiculous. Do you think the PLAN can shoot down US drones off the coast of California without repercussions?
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
US intel is not based purely on satilites. To believe that is under estimating the the powers brought to bare on American foes. The US is the top user of uav types.
Globalhawk and RQ170 are likely the tip of a large iceberg in terms of intel uav and stealth uavs. Add to that U2, nolonger in a penitrating role, but part of ELINT. RC135 variants fly SIGINT and COMINT. USN subs operations can include such packages as well Virginia class was designed to in fact do just that.
Now in time of war a drone entering a carrier group would be killed. Out side of time of war it would be warned off first if it continued it would be killed. A incident yes a war no part of the whole reason for drone use is that unlike a manned craft if a drone is downed the situation never has to accelerate. A downed drone does not need rescue a downed drone has no blood no family to mourn. I mean you dont see the US declaring war over iranian spoofing or Chinese hacking. Its an incident. Russia did not declare war when Gary Powers was shot down and neither did the US. Its excepted and moved on from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top